>> i work for the institute for justice. so we were talking about different programs through the government and differen the dift things that would help enterprises grow. has everyone worked for individuals would rather invest on their own? a 15,000-dollar bond has there been any sort of organization to try to get individual investors that are in the business already to invest in the micro- enterprise instant? >> d. want to take that? >> quickly. there are a number of programs.

there is kiva and then foundations where individuals can invest into those funds would be invested. those are the two kinds of examples. one is an individual organization that has had a strategy such as kiva and then the other is an investor type of strategy. >> one thing i would add there is a federally funded program and one of the things you can do match savings for and without federal funding you can raise an additional match to that.

a lot of the programs out of the country deal with dollars from individuals to help match the savings. >> there are also institutionalized groups like angel investors who do look at a wide range of applicants and i have heard that they are rich folks that just hang out on kickstart her but think generous amounts of donations to start ups. >> one of the questions we had e is which entrepreneurs are going to get funded so there need to be mechanisms to allow the lower income entrepreneurs to take advantage of that. >> if you care about this issue you should really weigh in because it can go against what we have been trying to work for. >> my name is teresa and my question is what efforts are

there that either exist or should be made to include in the enterprise development as well as the entrepreneurial skills and assets that may not be given directly to the the orders more accessible to them so i don't know which one would be more -- >> do you want to talk about that and then maybe some others? >> i think historically about 5% or people with disabilities at least i have seen that in the different data sets that we have had. there is an organization called the abilities found that has worked closely with micro- enterprise foundations to try to help those programs understand what barriers they maybe unintentionally putting in the way of working with people with disabilities and helping them revisit the policy procedures and standards etc.

so i know different programs are more sensitive to others but there are models and mechanisms to make that happen and it is a certain target population the field has been interested in. i know in the past dated education about how to open doors and reduce barriers to people with disabilities in different ways through a variety of technical assistance offerings so there have been some efforts but there could be many more initiatives of that type but i think they have understood that is an important constituency. >> i agree there is a huge opportunity for more. one issue we face is a lack of awareness. aeo along with citigrou gave ant the last conference to

hearing-impaired organizational training entrepreneurs so i think trying to get more recognition and opportunity to increase that working model is huge and one of the things we are trying to do is promote a particular model that raises these programs. >> we are at 1:30s i'm going to draw to a close. i'm going to think my panelists for being here and for your contributions today and most importantly for the work that provides the basis. i want to thank dawn again for setting the stage so nicely and thanks to the casey foundation for their support and debate ideas for jobs here eas easing e couple things one is the paper not just the micro- enterprise fund that there is a website for

big ideas for jobs, it bigideasforjobs.org. we are going to do a second event at aspen focusing on a couple other papers in the series and specifically on the opportunities and policies that can support the social enterprise and educational institutions and others to create jobs again focused on individuals and communities that have the largest challenges. we don't have a date for that yet but we are working on it and we will send invitations to all of you again so look for that in the next couple of weeks. thank you again for joining us have a happy thanksgiving and shop for small business on saturday. [applause]

i think the word entitlement often has a negative connotation

but the goal is for girls and women to operate with a greater sense of entitlement, to say i am deserving of that opportunity. i am prepared and qualified. but it's all of those other doubts and insecurities that get in the way. she was a leading to some of it earlier but it takes a minimum of seven people to convince a woman to run for office. would you venture to guess how many it takes to convince a man? [laughter] and it actually is not a joke. [laughter] i can say i was recruited to run for office. that is the case for most women. i wasn't in a corner calculating my political ascension. i was an aide to senator john kerry for eight years and prior to that i enjoyed being the person behind the person and

found a great influence and reward in that. priothat. prior to my being recruited to run there had never been a woman of color elected to the council. >> how many times did they ask you? >> more than seven. [background sounds] ♪ ♪ [background sounds]

>> november 25, 1953 approximate the 1 million people lined the route of president kennedy's funeral procession from the u.s. capitol to the arlington national cemetery. millions more watched the television coverage. beginning on thanksgiving day on c-span watch nbc coverage of president kennedy's state funeral. >> increasingly women's identities are tied up to their work in a way that we may not like and we may find disturbing and unnatural that it is true. when i look at someone like marissa wa who was chosen to bee ceo of yahoo! when she was visibly pregnant and then was asked how much maternity leave you want to take and she said basically none. affect such women exist isn't the way that i would. i took plenty of maternity leave

but i feel like that is a kind of woman very can be and there are some stay-at-home dad who do not all entirely live in portland oregon and that is okay, too. senior counterterrorism experts monday discussed the threats from so-called lone wolves at an event hosted by the potomac institute. former intelligence official said another attack on the scale of 9/11 in the u.s. is not likely but he also said that more needs to be done to counter the threat from those that would act alone. >> ladies and gentlemen, my name

is mike swetman of the potomac institute for policy studies and not for profits think tank in washington dc that focuses on science and technology and how science and technology is changing our society for almost 17 years now. we have been the host and the home of her international center for terrorism studies had up by professor yonah alexander and i think most people here would agree and understand that the center that yonah heads is one of the most foremost institutions in the world focusing on all aspects of terrorism. professor alexander's group has looked at from a study being published documents on every conceivable realm and aspect of terrorism for many years. he personally is an offer mac of

over 100 books on the subject and we are quite proud here at the potomac institute to be the home of his academic efforts. we are also privileged to have partnered with the international wall institute and professor wallace is here representing them as he always has with the international institute and for well over a decade we have partnered with v. ili and professor wallace to bring you these seminars and discussions. today we are focusing and going to have high hope a very spirited discussion presentation followed by question and answer discussion with the audience on one of the most insidious and hard to defend parts of terrorism associated with the lone wolf where we have built up a tremendous body of policy and procedure for dealing with the

groups and state sponsored terror for some. the lone wolf the individual plots put together a plot often in sympathy with the group it is often hard to find before hand. finding and dealing with lone wolves will continue to be one of the most challenging aspects of the society going forward. how we use technology to do that and how we figure out how to use technology while protecting civil liberties will be one of the questions of our time so it is with a great privilege that i get to introduce the session today on the lone wolf terrorism and was that i will once again try to introduce the person who is impossible to introduce and that is professor yonah alexander who is the foremost expert on turf for some. professor?

>> thank you very much, mike for your always generous introduction. let's talk about technology. i would appreciate if you would kindly please. mike mentioned the collaboration which our academic partners the international wall institute and effect of the latest publication with professor don roberts and colleagues is on counterterror for some selected perpetrators. the next one will be available next week and the next one is on air on which i guess many people

are concerned about. today we do have a very distinguished panel to discuss what mike indicated is one of the most insidious challenges and we are really delighted to have their perspectives. let me introduce the members of the panel, spike bowman of the fbi currently distinguished fellow at the center on national security university of virginia school of law and this is the other partner that we cooperate with. then professor kumar at the

school of foreign service georgetown university and the president of the olson group mr. wallace. i'm going to say a few things and then turned to introductions before they speak. usually what we try to do is keep in mind that terrorism is only one of the many challenges in terms of man-made and national disasters therefore we always try to remember, never forget those who were victimized by both mother nature and man-made disasters and with this

opportunity i would like to express sympathy for the victims in latvia who were killed in the supermarket and those who were killed in the typhoon in the philippines and those who were victimized by terrorist attacks from algeria to kenya and the ongoing attacks now in a serious, iraq, afghanistan, pakistan and elsewhere so that is one way to express our solidarity and sympathy of the victims. and then of course on the other side we have to honor those who served and save lives and protect lives off away from the first responders to the police, the military and those of

government and civic society to combat terrorism. now president obama made a statement several years ago and said the most likely scenario, and i quote, that he would have to guard against what he calls the lone wolf operation rather then a coordinated terrorist attack. obviously the top security concern is the iran nuclear war and the geneva deal and we would have to obviously focus attention on this issue as well and the question arises whether there is a link of connection between the lone wolf and buck

weapons of mass destruction and we are going to discuss that today. again, academically as mike indicated we try to sanction many of the issues which relate also to the lone wolf. now, today it happens that this is the 50th anniversary of jfk and exactly 50 years ago the state funeral took place. i mention this because even the assassination of jfk is a big question in terms of the environment where they are giveg what they wolf wolf or member of

some sort of conspiracy. let me also mention that today, the month of november we have to remember some other attacks which relate to the lone wolf, whether it be attack at fort texas. but prior to that, in 1950 we remember the attempted assassination of president reagan by terrorists and the question is what is the definition of the lone wolf. again there are many examples in recent history that focus attention on the lone wolf, for example in 198518 years ago when

an individual assassinated prime minister and this can be regarded also as a lone wolf operation. now again, the history recorded many instances of lone wolf but before we go to the examination the context to our discussion in terms of trying to look at the source by that i mean what are the challenges that we are facing in other words the

challenges all the way from organized crime and the link between organized crime terrorism and the trafficking that we are discussing and from the financial threats around the world the maritime security concerns that are raised, transportation security concerns concerns, the infrastructure security, cyber security and environmental security. i just returned from a nato meeting in turkey and we discussed specifically the threats to north africa to the mahgreb and various stability all the way from the atlantic to the red sea and beyond. so, what is the bottom line? i think that the bottom line

might indicated clearly the issue of civil liberties and the technology i would submit that we have three questions again and again, after 9/11 is the worst to come and secondly with the civilizations challenge and third, coming back to the concern strategies and democracies tend to exist. now, if we look at the definitions related to trigger for some big anniversary and whether this means the lone wolf ie would sub made that we are

facing basically three topics of challenges. one, we call them the lone wolf but we could also call them the individuals who were involved. second, i think that we have to look at the groups. some more sophisticated, some less sophisticated and other sponsors of terrorism so. fundamentally we do have individuals. some of them are mentally deranged and some of them waved the flag has to say a single issue of politics with ideologically based groups and religious intolerance movements

and then we mentioned the bursa berries in the united states again we see all of this variety from what we call the hate crime for example those who are loyal to different kinds of ideologies or the religious-based ideologies so in terms of what's happening in the united states whether we call them a freelance or leaderless resistance bonus but not political terrorist for example we have been able your

shooting in september and this month at the los angeles airport and the low levels in america going all the way back if you will to 1968 when a palestinian decided to assassinate bobby kennedy because he was motivated [inaudible] also all of us remember the unit bomber who conducted a campaign for many years radicalized over the technological society and then of course we all remember what happened in 1995 and the

affect of the federal building when 168 people were killed and 800 people were wounded. and then of course the most recent, 4-foot shooting that nidal facilitated at the time -- fort hood shooting that nidal facilitated. incidentally, we do have a pressing number of women who are also involved. we can look at the nonpolitical motivations and then we can look at the political motivations. ait's a tough fundamentally, i think that what we are going to discuss today basically the two sides we have to consider mostly on the political side, and then

we can spend a semester at least for the various trends are not going to do it, but i think that it would be useful in terms of some context to discuss the phenomenon isn't very well understood and we have to keep in mind the terrorists are not born but they are created by various political, social, economic environments. in other words, the lone wolf terrorists they do not appear from outer space. they are part of our society. and they are the subject to the political and social economic ideologies in the environment. the technology and so forth some

operate on one basis. there are a number of studies that were developed over the years on a daily basis and i think that it requires a great deal of interest in terms of radicalization and international society tries to understand what can be done to deal with it. ultimately the discussion would provide i think the initial context for discussion, and the first speaker as i mentioned is

spike bowman, who has a very rich background in the government, in the military diplomatic activity and academic community. .. we are looking forward to his

remarks via and then we are going to follow up with our other and then hopefully develop a discussion with all of you. spike, if you would, peter. [inaudible] >> okay. >> well, thank you, yonah. i first started thinking about lone wolf terrorist on right after 9/11. at the time i was the deputy general counsel for national security affairs at the fbi. and we really didn't know an awful lot about al qaeda at that point in time. but we begin to click into it very quickly.

and among the things that we learned was that there were a number of training camps in al qaeda in afghanistan. the worry looked at it, the more we realize that while al qaeda was trained in camps in afghanistan, an awful lot of other people had gone through there, too, not necessarily affiliated with al qaeda, not necessarily intending to go out and immediately descend being, but perhaps going there for training to do something later on. so we began to think about what would happen if one of those people began to decide to do something unattached, unaffiliated. the reason i made a big difference is because the way we looked for a terrorist and spies and so forth in the united states was largely through the foreign intelligence surveillance act. which is operated by a secret

court. it has secret warrants for wiretaps and physical searches. the predicate for a fisa warrant is that the target is either a foreign power or an agent for foreign power. if you have a person acting on its own, it's pretty hard to detect the agency in a foreign power. one of the things that i did fairly soon after 9/11 as i suggested that perhaps we could have an amendment to the foreign intelligence surveillance act to look at this person, which caused a lot of consternation because it did change the way we have thought about the act from the start. we eventually did get an amendment to the act for that purpose. but we also began to realize and other things that might happen, too. one of the things that started me thinking along a slightly different line was soon after

9/11, dutch foreign intelligence produced three study about the radicals in their part of the world. one of the really startling things that cannot have that was that it did not hide a lot of ideologues. they found a lot of people who seem to be having an affinity for violence. just wanted to do something violently. as a consequence, they started looking at those individuals and actually did disrupt not only in the netherlands, but other countries as well, since things that were being planned to have been simply because they were focused on these individuals. well, we began to look at that and then another thing happening in 2005 we have the british underground bombings and we began to look at that point in the well, you know, we've got

people in the country that they be discontent, too. something we've not really focus on all that much is that day. so now we are starting to people who are not affiliated with al qaeda or something similar or people in our communities who want to do violence. so we began to think more and or that there might be some other things to do about this. when i testified in 2002 of congress to ask for the foreign intelligence surveillance act to be an, i'd have to say congress is very skeptical. they were not really ready to accept the fact that we might have these other types of individuals in the united states. they really took some period of time for the congress to come around. they eventually did. but the one thing -- the other thing that has happened through

the years as we have fairly well decimated the ability of al qaeda and al qaeda tape affiliate to carry out the large context type of operation that 9/11 represented. could it happen again? yeah. but what is more likely? here i'm going to give you a prediction. in the united states and probably in most of the western countries as well come a future terrorist acts are more likely to be less well-organized than we saw with 9/11. they are likely to be less complex. they are less likely to succeed. they are less likely to be as lethal as they do succeed. they are going to be more numerous. and in all likelihood, i believe that they will be mostly conducted a citizens or long-term residents of the united states.

now why do i say that? first of all, i think that is way the sequence of events that i've just laid out sort of points us towards. secondly, if we stop and take a look at what has happened in the united states since 9/11, we've had over 50 terrorists, according to fbi reporting, over 50 terrorist attacks defeated. we've also had a number of terrorist saluted person arrested. of those who were associated with or had some length to al qaeda or al qaeda type of philosophy, more than half of them were united states citizens. 35% of them were born in the united states. 60% of them had a college degree and 60% of them were either working or in school. these are not the people that we

will looking at right after 9/11. these are not the discontented arabs who were going to the camps in afghanistan to try and learn how to make an explosive, to try and learn tactics or maybe to go learn to shoot a gun. who knows. but it's basically we are looking at anything today an entirely different cadre of people than we thought about many years ago. what bothers me about it is i don't think we're looking at it hard enough. i don't think that we are focused as much on the lone wolf, the single individual who might have no affiliation with anybody, who might not even be an ideologue, who might just crack and because again you can think back to the example of timothy mcveigh. but we have seen others in the united states who would like this as well.

i think that is what the future holds for us. i will leave it there. >> i must say, i think the way you all descriptive, there is no doubt about your analysis of the basic of what already happened. not only u.s. citizens or permanent residents, but also those who come here to study on the visa or illegals as well. but it is also characterized in countries as well as we have seen with the terrible threats in norway in the name of some secular ideologies.

so i think this is the wave of the future. now we are going to add another perspective to discuss the issue with dr. kumar, whom i introduced earlier, and he is also at the school of foreign service. and he specializes on the financial aspects as well as on south asia case study and that particular origin. so i ask him to bring in some of his findings and is and then we're going to have a third speaker to focus more on the weapons of mass destruction. dr. kumar, could you come back

here? >> is there to to at night or having treasure. this distinguished panel and previous speaker, spike, for an excellent presentation. essentially, i'm going to run through some important aspects of love -- love -- set to terrorism. most people conflate it with one person who plans, executes it and finances it. the reality is, especially in the political terrorism, a single individual may perpetrate the act at the end stage, but in terms of radicalization, he may more likely than not be radicalized through either a

group or the internet or some army experience or what have you. that is a distinction we have to be very clear about. the knee-jerk responses just because it's a single individual, he must be kind of a lone wolf terrorists. he may not be a terrorist at all, that he may be a terrorist as well. and he may be a number of a covert organization. the radicalization through the terrorist camps. for example, if you look at the boston bomber, one had traveled, so it's hard to really call a person who would travel a lot -- lone wolf terrorists, along with the internet of course. secondly, uni and spike as well. what are the types of lone wolf terrorists, could allow to miss

miss -- timothy mcveigh. begin a bomber could be criminal as well and idiosyncratic. when a state criminal, there could be, for example, the anthrax attacker in 2001, bruce ivins who passed away in 2009. he had a criminal intent. it has to be one or the other. it could be a mix match of the five categories. but fact your is going to be a of lone wolf terrorist on they could be documented psychological disorders as we discovered many, including the boston number and others. it could be affinity with their membership of terrorist organization or criminal gangs. then there could be a broadcasting of terrorist intentions, for example, in norway they had broadcast what he was going to do. so there are signals that the

wood he lone wolf attacker would be doing something spectacular. then there is the role of enablers and radicalization, for example, for the internet or military experience. the "american idol" addict agents in the process. could be personal and political triggering events. for example, timothy mcveigh went to radicalization after the experience and the first gulf war and action. he developed such a thing for the federal government and he was at first a brave. so you have all these basket case folks who may be radicalized in one of many ways. then there are what we call stochastic terrorism, which are basically folks like that would hear he and bin laden and amber al-awlaki resorting to engage in lone wolf attacks.

that would be what we call a really stochastic process, with where it would be what some terrorists would call missiles actually. but to terrorist organizations achieve using mobile terror? i'm going to focus more frontier now on terrorist organizations and how they may use or utilize globals attackers. what you terrorist attackers use? low cost him a greater impact, require little planning. are difficult to predict and protect. there is this aspect of plausible deniability. if you like the mumbai bombings in 2008, this is topical because we're celebrating the fifth anniversary of the attacks in mumbai. exactly on november 26, 2008, when the 60 began. initially, the news reports said

there was one jab and then we discovered lashkar-e-taiba was trying to engage will be called plausible deniability. and then, there could be threat of the indian majority or a local criminal game in indiana. this has happened before because if you look at the surveillance of the mumbai targets in 2007, is he a global terrorist or is he kind of, kind of fanfare by lashkar-e-taiba to make me believe this is an individual who is perpetrating acts and so on? there is the case of beirut, was involved in a plot to survey the financial institutions in new york and is thursday in washington. and then, there is this man to obviate the requirement on the

part of the love will tear us to communicate with other members of the group. in this way, terrorist organizations can engage in plausible deniability. it is the individual. i told you we aren't involved. what he's lone wolf attacks, as far as terrorist organizations go, the word he terrorists or would he fumbles, all of you can go and do the same thing. that's what al-awlaki has been saying. that's at 73 is saying to global terror. importantly enough, what kind of counterterrorism strategies? there could be right either up and down, but i think this washington metro, and now, say something if you see something.

that's a very typical example of what could be done because a global terrorists, at least i would consider a global terrorist is someone who executes and finances and plan the attack, but his radicalized by an external agent. i.e. the terrorist organization. whatever they might be, the military previous traveled, previous contact, part of the sleepers, what have you. then there is a need for federal, state and local kind of coordination and information sharing in this, trying to nip of these would be attacks in the. but then there's a very important civil liberties issue. with what is the government internet, it should because whatever is taking place, the steelers are in over the internet. what kind of messaging, what kind of chatting? how does they would be fumbled terrorist finance his terrorist

plots? how to think the mac? work in their does he have? then there is this question of rapid response. for example, if the norwegian authorities responded after the first attack, or can it is difficult to predict what that is going to do. but if it only responded to that, he may not have predicted. he may not have perpetrated the second attack, which is a more heinous one with large casualties. then there's the question of investigating noxious level of terrorist acts. there's so much more one can learn from a plot. faisal should god -- a plot that has been foiled or watched. what kind of implications does lone wolf terrorism have for counterterrorism measures? it is difficult to detect and

therefore unorthodox strategies are called for come including the ones i mentioned including community policing. the cd strategies need to be designed to prepare for and respond and prevent this terrorist attacks. it's difficult to make out when we do this whether the attack is by a criminal or a secular terrorist for idiosyncratic terrorists. it is difficult to tailor make the strategy to kind of addressed the potential plot or the potential terrorist attacks. there are obviously issues of whether mumbled terrorist attacks are more possible in developed societies versus developing societies. in the context of south asian nations, pretty clearly their information sharing measures, monitoring measures are not as good as ours. so there is a thinking amongst

intelligence of law enforcement circles that it's harder to perpetrator planned a lone wolf terrorist plot in a place like india or any other country in southeast asia than there is in the developed world. there is an opportunity to study what is going on in terms of the lack of lone wolf terrorist attacks and south asian countries further developing societies. the real possibility as we see time in an time that i've terrorist attacks here. lastly, i just want to talk about radicalization. i want all of us to look at carefully, what does radicalization entail? what is al qaeda? we are a little bit access to the organization of al qaeda. the organization structure of al qaeda. there is the al qaeda ideology, which we haven't been able to do much about.

the counter radicalization strategy starts with employee. then there is the al qaeda movement, which is still intact. if you look at the ideology or the movement of that vocal separatist and kashmir region or other parts of the world. for the separatist in south asia, i.e. the taliban. that coupled with the fact that there is increased interaction amongst affiliates of al qaeda points to and of course would be potential blog where terrorists were part of this movement. there is some connection, either ideological or in person or. it difficult again she really screened to a judgment if that's okay, if you have a single

individual, i would reckon that radicalization and some strange than as a kind of support as well. most people would recognize it. we've got to go beyond the obvious about peers on the surface may not be entirely true. it's good to dig deep and look up more important aspects of radicalization and a lot more can be done in terms of engagement with improving the individuals, for example or to prevent someone who's been in prison not to become a terrorist, to address education means or kind of work unemployment. a lot of literature deals with recidivist and blast out at one time of day, perpetrating the facts in a few ap or other outfits, either area or yemen or elsewhere.

thank you. >> next speaker is kyle olson who has experience as well consulting, advising government and industry and the academic community, particularly to the nature of the threat and i remember very vivid way after the attack in tokyo, which was mass distraction that you are kept busy to make sense of that. i really think what you're very wise experience, to share midsize your thing gain about

the various scenarios and possibilities of what we call some sort of weapons of mass destruction, whether the chemical is serene where the anthrax in some cases that we have seen in the united states and abroad related to that potential. so kyl, if you'll please come up here. >> thank you. >> the lone wolf terrorist is obviously a subject of great interest, great concern. he threw several questions out right at the beginning, yonah, you asked whether or not the

future for terrorism in general, but certainly lone wolf terrorists. i really cannot at something worse than 9/11, an event on that hill? you asked whether society can survive in u.s. also whether or not democracy and freedoms can survive in that environment. first of all, just at queuing a couple of things which are already poised to appear. the lone wolf represents problem. i think we sometimes throw the label terrorism around for a terrorist around another two expansive a fashion. is simply a person out for revenge. in other cases it may be a criminal activity. during the terrorism word seems to put it in a comfortable basket for many of us and that can lead us down a sometimes slippery slope from an analytical point of view. i would also note when i think about the lone wolf, i think we

often see timothy mcveigh is a global terrorists. but in fact of course he had some help. so lone wolf may be fair to say that lone wolf was semi-lone wolf terrorism is a similar threat. something significantly below the level of an al qaeda or an al qaeda affiliate. and yeah dreamtime represents something outside that construct. the reason i get there is because the lone wolf for someone with me be very, very small group certainly has the potential for accessing weapons that we would want into the weapon of mass distraction category. the classic hierarchy, the chemical biological, radiological hierarchy is when they can look at and say okay, many of these are within the reach of an individual. you can certainly look at the notion of being able to access some quantity of toxic chemicals

and find some way to introduce the century setting. now that doesn't need to be a mass killer. it doesn't need to be the kind of incident that produces body counts in the hundreds. for example, the introduction of a toxic chemical interschool building, the access to cylinders of chlorine, for example or some other material has the potential to create toxic event. 9/11 scale? probably not. on the other hand, the threat is they are there certain materials available out there that are accessible whether we talk about getting discrete quantities, whether we talk about capturing, disrupting, diverting truckloads of materials like that or even an attack on a production or storage facility. the collateral effects are significant, rio and could be very meaningful in that regard. certainly within the capacity, the capability of someone with at least even a rudimentary

understanding of the fact that there's a label on the side of this is bad for you is probably bad for someone else as well. on the other hand, a chemical weapons attack like the one was on the tokyo subway attack in the mid-90s was an event that required a very robust investment on the part of a group of individuals. were talking about investments -underscore attentive not hundreds of thousands of dollars in a commitment to work on that problem over a period of time. that is maybe some thing that distinguishes that kind of a threat. maybe that pushes it out of the classic bubbles pattern. i donate by the fact that the unabomber maintained a can pain, but his work was basically the small package pond scum which he developed a knack for processing and reducing. chemical weapons probably in a meaningful way a little bit outside the scope of the individual. might not have had to scope of a

smaller group. biological weapons we often hear about about the poor man's nuclear weapon, the atom bomb. biological threat is a legitimate threat in this sense the biological weapon can be self replicating environment. you don't need a large industrial base to produce what if you have access to the appropriate stocks up front. infectious diseases and infectious disease. as the one who has survived flu season will play the little kid next-door is a delivery device for biological weapon of some sort. the biological threat is also one that can be an example of a talented dabbler, working in his own laboratory, working our diverting research facilities in a university or hospital setting. the technology is certainly there. biological weapons, the reference was made to the end tax attacks earlier in this

decade. anthrax technology is essentially 1950s level weapons grade to elegy. you look back at some other biological agents, biological agents have been used as a weapon either with great conscious thought and events are as a collateral effect going back for hundreds of years. an individual could certainly find a way to apply a biological weapon in a selected attack. again, protecting the society killer or city killer? probably not. but on the other hand, the lone wolf has come and this is true or weapons of mass destruction scenarios, or a mass killing scenarios. the lone wolf terrorist operates in essentially a vacuum in terms of supervision, in terms of restrictions or limitations, in terms of any kind of filter on what is or isn't acceptable. the truth almost is only answerable to himself or

herself. and therefore, by the way, that means many traditional deterrent tacked to ask that we use as governments, as military command line foresman organization chart of identifying and capturing the wood the attacker are essentially not going to have very much impact. the lone wolf operates about committees, without worrying about going before an appropriations board of any kind. she does what he can do when he wants to do it on his timetable. the one that obviously explosives fall well within that universe. that goes without saying. that the one and most significant terms of its real footprint is the radiological threat. for the last 10, 15 years, i think one of the recurring question on the part of security planners everywhere is why

haven't we been hit with a dirty bomb? dirty bombs are the easiest weapon, probably in that pool panoply of choices to make. probably the easiest weapon to assemble, and easiest within two years. attain a specific quantity of radiological material. wrap it around conventional explosive, which we now you can access and detonated. the effects do not even have to be lethal. sociological, economic, political, cultural impacts of debt needing a radiological device, dispersal device in a major urban area, and the monumental core of the city of washington would be substantial. because the author notice is one of the almost impossible things to obtain from any government agent fee. the dirty bomb went off down the street, but don't worry, we determined you are safe go ahead.

also, not let's not leave out the notion of a cyberattack. we could argue that the recent actions by anonymous as well as the release of the nsa files constitutes an act of terrorism. certainly the impacts have been dramatic. they been political in nature, but they have also certainly had impacts far beyond what you would expect to find on its own drives. and that is certainly once again an example of an intelligent individual, and arrogant individual in the disassociate individual feeling free to carry out what he or she felt to be a legitimate exercise of his self-imposed authority. so going back to the questions you asked. 9/11 committee review on that. for the lone wolf, i would argue that a 9/11 spectacular or an event with that kind of a body count is probably beyond their

reach, probably. you could have the perfect storm. you can argue that 9/11 itself is the perfect storm. is certainly exceeded the expect patience of al qaeda. both societies survive? yes, society will survive because we are more resilient than any one individual or one of my group of individuals. we are society 350 million within a larger society 6 billion. yes, society will survive. at the end of the day can you ask about democracy and values and rights and privileges. as noted before, the lone wolf operates without restrictions, the filters, the constraints reassociate with organizations, even terrorist organizations like al qaeda have a command structure and decision matrix. the lone wolf gets up this morning it feels like killing you. hukill you. i look forward to our

discussion. >> thank you. >> obviously, i think ui for some very profound issues in question and i hope we can develop the discussion among the pml and as well as the audience. that's why i think we have to, in our analysis, action, a very clear distinction between the individual, what they call the individual and group organized group as one of state-sponsored terrorism. by the way, as the criticism of the data, whether it is historic data or not, but concerns of

some members of congress and others that in the package there was no indication related to state-sponsored terrorism of iran, their involvement in syria is so forth. so i think the bottom line is the nature, the intensity of the threat on the part of state like al qaeda and visual. what is absolutely correct i think you mention in terms of the impact is the number of attacks according to her studies, maybe 2% of all the attacks of terrorism and we are talking about thousands related to the individuals. but one attack can have a very significant impact.

i mentioned before the prime minister rabin incidentally spoke at our seminars and so forth by individuals undermines the peace process for many years. so again, it's not only the number, but the impact. i think one of the areas that we consider, not only the political and nonpolitical, how many attacks we have in the united state at the school as ability. in fact, one of the most recent i think letter was the anthrax or some other device that was sent to president obama to new york city mayor lundberg was

really related to that particular issue. so again, i think we have to look at the other picture. beyond the issue of radicalization. it's true what you said about the individual who does not look at some approval by its colleagues has no constraints with however. but that individual does not exist in a vacuum in terms of radicalization. and dr. kumar also mentioned technology, this internet and so forth, the inspiration they had. so what i propose we can discuss again is the issue, always the lone wolf be created.

again, indicated in general the terrorists are not born, but they are created. again, we can condemn them as observed a long time ago. we can be against the evildoers, but we cannot understand the mind of the evil door. we can not understand the mind of the lone wolves. so again, do you want to respond to some of the common dr. kumar? >> i sort of agree with yonah about the radicalization peace. as much radicalization programs could take care of the behavior. they in no way cannot impact of the ideology. so the symptoms could be taken care of in terms of behavior as

a somewhat subtle measure. in terms of the ideology, which is so profound, whatever the agents maybe could be triggering events, could be folks like al salieri or al-awlaki percodan, extorting these loose affiliate members or even potential lone wolf attackers. there's not much that can be done as far as the ideology is concerned because we don't really understand why they have this ideology of anti-death side. that's one feature. the other is the issue tours the u.s., israel and its alliance. currently, the movement is that they stand for. this is why they are for soldiers. their foot soldiers for the

cost. it may not have the kind of terrorist leaders as an oppositional network of the financiers, but they can be self financed. ideology is something they import from the outside. to the extent that some tracks with their mental dilapidation or other political grievances. it's really difficult to fathom what to do about it. and also, this is mentioned earlier as well, these guys could be criminals or radicalized. these guys could be just criminals. they could be folks who are idiosyncratic. they just have funny behavior patterns. so it's difficult to come out with measures per se. i would look at the ideology really and the whole radicalization process as yonah mentioned is the more important object instead being insane it is important how these levels

are created, how they're incubated, how they are made much rather than how to perpetrate the act, which is really the end-stage or how they plan the act. so external influence than they would be loved as she hardly a something that needs to be studied and mobile terrorism is hard to really theorize. it's hard to study in the absence of case studies. every attack is unique and special with a different message and a different ideological impact and so on. so bumble terrorism cannot be a typology. it is a tactic used a terrorist as well as non-terrorists. >> inks. >> spike, can i ask you a question from an enforcement point of view.

one concern is the role of intelligence and severing of intelligence in terms of the different agencies. how do you say this, especially in light of the recent revelation of the nsa struggle in terms of the question of the civil liberties, a concern you worked on for so many years. >> civil liberties -- excuse me, civil liberties is your biggest terms we had at the fbi because the fbi has other like nsa, unlike the central intelligence become and 95% of what the nsa collects again by u.s. persons, not foreigners. we've always been very concerned about that.

i probably received at least one phone call a day for agents in the field who ask and i do this? should i do this? where is the line. i mentioned not only to emphasize the fact this is a real issue. now if you come up to today and look at what the nsa is doing, several different things. first of all, what the nsa is doing is collecting that data. but the newspapers have not told you is the metadata isn't constitutionally protected. it is third-party information. it does not belong to you. it belongs to the telephone companies in the telephone companies can do anything they want with it except to give it to a federal officer without being compelled to do so. that's one thing. i will say that when i argued for the creation of that statute

as the article to 15 of the patriot act, when i argued for that one, i never anticipated and i don't think anybody anticipated it would be used as it was being used today. we look at it as being something that would target a single person for some dang. so that is another thing that's happening. but if you take the program and work it backwards a bit to 9/11, if we had the opportunity to 9/11 to collate telephone messages, public addresses and frequent flyer numbers, none of which is constitutionally protected, we would have had the possibility of discovering all 19 hijackers in the united states. now i'm not telling you we would've prevented 9/11 from happening because if we had discovered all of them here and

we had been following them and watching them inside and get on the airplanes, 99% -- i'm 99% certain what would have happened if the fbi agent who were following them would have noted the plane they got on, where they were going to call the san diego field office and told them to pick them up when they arrived there. but my point is that you can get this information or valuable information that is constitutionally unprotected. the thing you have to ask yourself and this is what the government, what the public needs to ask itself. two phases. the flip side of the question here. one question is coming to want the government to do everything it can to protect your? the other question is do you want the government to look and record every time you visit a website or make a phone call? though several questions. right now, i will tell you that

as a matter of law, what the nsa is doing for privacy purposes is not a privacy intrusion. i will be there to the judges of the fisa court to determine whether it be a good idea slothful and 11 very senior judges have said it is, so i will rest on that. as a matter of privacy law, nobody's privacy is being affected by this program. >> thank you very much for this clarification. i suggest that we develop some sort of discussion in terms of number one, the radicalization process of some of these individuals all the way from alienation, for example, unemployment or whatever it is. secondly, what are some of the strategies that are available to deal with this on the local level, the national level in the

international level. the idea is the experience in government and outside government and i would like to invite them to participate. the first the state department, the counterterrorism office, would you share some of your views the lone wolf idea? you can come up here if you'd like. >> maybe i can project. first of all, i want to pick up something spike said about people have a tendency for violent acts. you know, there is a psychological aspect to this of course and we saw this, though, with the ira when they reach agreement he had some people could not put down the tools and developing real ira. it seems to me one of the tools

we haven't talked about yet is the fbi has connected sting operations. the adjusting your thoughts or anyone else working for fbi and doj, what are the guidelines? when do you start on this? the other thing that occurs to me as a psychological aspect is they may be some similarities between people who conduct violence for various reasons like the shootings, the mass shootings we've had various incidents, navy yard, it better and people who do it for terrorist motives. part of the problem is detected and somebody before they go off the deep end. when they identified the culprit, the neighbors and others say well, we didn't know where you seem to be a nice guy and nothing out of line. it turns out sometimes there were some indicators along the lines. my database in the same neighborhood as the boston

bombers and covers some of your times. it was only later people said yeah, this guy sounded strange a radical. where is the dividing line of privacy where people reporter. it is still a fuzzy area we haven't been able to address. anyway, back to the tools, one of them is the possibility of the nsa intersect of the patterns you talk about and the other is the sting operations. the third is the deradicalization. i slightly disagree with you that you can't get rid of ideology perhaps. but if he can somehow discourage people from acting on that ideology, were still ahead of the game. it's a hard thing to measure. it's hard to measure what you succeed in or don't succeed in. >> okay. by the way, mike, could you comment on the role of the media because one time in your life

you covered this event for the media. does the media have a role in terms of deradicalization of process? >> i think there's two aspects. my involvement in journalism was before the terrorism episodes really developed. it was covering washington and overseas. but you know, there's a certain amount of attempts at the glamorization of cherry status romantic freedom fighters. i was recruited privately to the state department in 1985 with secretary shultz wanted to start a public diplomacy campaign against terrorism. one of the things we found this especially in europe in the middle east coming people tend to claim rights terrorist. the media sometimes plays the role of mess. sometimes inadvertently coming sometimes by carrying portentous

claims with the counterbalancing. and when this initiative, it's always very difficult because reports come out sometimes. reporters are reporting that they hear from police officials are local officials who only have part of their story. outsiders often so much confusion around. for example, there were attacks on one hand. i believe the embassy and press were showing whether scott and wired people were stationed et cetera. they were trying to restrain the press reporting information things that might be useful. it's happening in dubai, to where they pick up radio or tv reports or were security forces. there's this issue of restraining the press. it's much more difficult in this

country than say the u.k. because you have so many local tv reporters out there and sometimes frankly are rather green and painted don't have good relationships with the police and local authorities. it's important for local authorities, fbi, to try to develop good relationships in advance of the key local media. so there's not trust when we ask them to hold off on some thing. >> okay. are there any questions from the audience at this point? yes, please. please identify yourself for the record. [inaudible] >> excuse me. my name is kyl olson. i am retired. i spent some years in the pentagon. this is not a field day working

professionally. but i am grateful that we sit in on it. with regard to the example on the 9/11 hijackers, the real clue that was missed was a bunch of foreigners wanting to go to flight school in florida and expressed hope the money they had no need to do to take up land. that was reported to the fbi because it certainly was a very bright signal. as they say, but not before the congress seems to users connecting the dots. the same was but these boys, the russian told the united states that these guys are probably trouble. and that was not followed up on. there are many other examples. the reason i am bringing this up is the old adage that one learns more from mistakes and from successes. i was hoping to hear discussion of failures and how we mine the

information from the failure to do better next time. >> well, with respect to your example is coming you conflated two different things with the flight schools. one of them is a bunch of people, foreigners who were taking flight lessons around the country. not that they were not trying to learn to take off the lands. they were learning how to fly. what was misquoted in the papers was the instance of the sally. the company he was taking lessons from him and he said didn't want to learn how to take off and land when precisely that is what he wanted to do. that was misrepresented to the company and reported that way in the newspapers. i can't answer the issue about the boston bombers as i wasn't at the fbi at the time. i will give you one thin that. when the terrorists gondolas

open up and this is a factor that has been named upon onerous that the terrorists. there is the large number because his many aliases people can use any spell mohammed 40 different ways literally and so forth. but we asked other countries that they wanted to give as the names that they are known as active terrorist. the number of countries did. brescia immediately sent to 300 means, on chechnya. just a little vignette. i don't know what was going on in the fbi's nine, but that's what i thought about it when i read it in the papers. you are quite right about hoping to have learned from our mistakes. one of the issues frankly one of the learning experiences institute team program today, trying to have an ability for a period of five years to look

back and see if there is something that we missed along the way. and that is one of the things it. whether it survives or not i don't know. i have no idea, but that is one of the learning lesson we had at the time. >> he worked on these issues for a long time. >> several things i've come to mind. just if i could make maybe three points on comments that remain. first of all, i think we need to be cognizant. we need to recognize that it's not just the role of the media when an event is playing out, but it is in fact the legitimizing or even the magnifying role of the media that is frequently sought by the lone wolf terrorist or the small organization or the group that the active phased out in order to maximize their gain recognition for media attention. that becomes part and parcel of

the objective of the exercise. a terrorist act that follows the middle of the forest but nobody is around doesn't get you much at the end of the day. i think the media role is a significant one and one we still don't fully understand. the urge to turn the boston bombers into, well, to cover the "rolling stone." right there, who would've guessed you'd be the first guy in its class. second thing i think we are conscious of and i think all your points are right on the mark. however, we need to be cognizant of the fact that she hardys terrorism, islamic terrorism is only one thin slice of the continuum, when we start looking at those people who really care to rise as the lone wolves.

and you have no right to the meta data and it's not protected. the first question that -- or the second question you want

to ask is can society survive? and the fair question to ask is society can probably survive on almost limitless number of lone bomber type of attack. if you don't think we can do it i suggest you look at downtown baghdad every day. the iraqis continue to fashion -- if it were playing out in the united states i dare say we would be hiding in our basement or maybe not. the concern i have, if we are going pursue perfect security, perfect detection, maximize our ability to look at every click on the internet as a way of looking for that person who might be an islamic radical, might be a radical environmentist, might be antiabortion, might not simply like people with blond hair, then we are arguably, arguably

-- we're not sliding down a slippery slope. we have a sled and heading for the botment to fast. >> i would like to pile on with a slight twist. this is a technology angle to the whole thing. there have been, if you will, loan wolf, or lone wolf pack. there's usually somebody helping on the side since mankind ground together. it's documented a certain percentage of us within a population or society is just nuts and goes postal. and kills people. so whether it is motivated by ideology or whether it's just somebody going over the edge and getting a gun and killing a handful of people. it is part of human nature. the question; however, is as technology provides tools to these terrorist or nuts to do

harm. as technology gets better and better and more and more lethal and more and more available, the impact of those lone wolfs or lone wolf packs grows exponentially. it used to be with a few guns or a handful of hand grenade or a panel truck full of fertilize are you could kill dozens maybe hundreds of people. one person can kill four or five -- timothy mcveigh is one of the most successful lone wolf we've had. what is technology making 20 years from now? what is technology going make available to lone wolfs 30, 40, gene sequencers are already available on the internet. and people with the knowledge to sequence and grow almost unthinkable biological organisms are graduating daily and ph.d.

in biochemist will tell you a bachelor's degree to get a gene sequencer and create something really bad. the point is as technology builds, a capability to do harm and our individual -- there's individuals out there who will use that. when they get past finding a gun and start reaching biology or some even more lethal technology. what will be the needs of society to make sure that doesn't happen? today we look and say, it's done in the noise. it's not worth sacrificing our civil liberties for. if the potential growth to the point of almost certainty that sooner or later one of these nuts is going to get ahollywood -- hold of somethinglet l. it's worth sacrificing to make sure that a significance of our population hundreds, thousand,

millions are not put in jeopardy. when we'll have that addition, do you know when we should be having the discussion? we should be having it now the civil liberties how we deal with it. we'll have the discussion about whether we need to find the nuts and trueses before they do it. we'll have a discussion a day after one of the people kills a million people. and it's not a question of if, it's a question of when. how much longer? >> well, i certainly agree with you. you know, the thing is from our academic studies for a long time, as you mentioned human nature of the same -- the first lone wolf [inaudible] when we talk about the killed and all that. but seriously, nothing is new under the sun except technology. and you spoke specifically -- you mentioned in the weapons of

mass destruction also the cyber, and i fully agree with you. today if i'm a lone wolf, and i really try to bring society on its knees, i can kill hundreds of people exactly in order to derail, for example, trains, or to try to choke us, you know, with -- [inaudible] to turn off electricity and so forth. the point i'm making is tragically, we have to be vigilant as a society. now i have my colleague, professor wallace. >> thank you. i usually make closing remarks and maybe i will. but this discussion, i think, raises profoundly the issue which principally my neighbor touched on.

when you think of the sheer spectrum of events, when you think of mike's point there are going to be restless, violent, nutty, ingene use people and you have technology. let's assume something big is going to happen. my very intelligent english wife believes in safety. she's intelligent and she wants society to protect itself. i think the issue is really what mr. olson touched on. i teach a course on this subject what the nsa is doing, and i think this will be the issue, society is going have to learn what -- strike that. the nsa is try dog do more and more. why? we have to assume in good faith it wants to protect us. it has technology of a different kind. the issue really is, can society learn enough so our political -- i don't use the word leaders but our political colleagues can intelligently decide what to

do? my students write papers about it all the time. telephone, meta data, all the programs there are constitutional issue. i agree with spike he knows more than i do. maybe want collection of meta data -- but i bet the court will be tempted to consider the individual query and the nsa itself is making quasi probably cause determinations before it dips in to my stuff. people point out if you look at my travel records, my doctor is -- publicly available. that's the real issue. i think you're quite right. america will not want to lose its forty amendment or first amendment protections. we don't know enough about the facts. we don't know what our preferences should be. we will learn. i don't see -- i have said it before. i have little tolerance for edward snowden as for the snake in the garden of the eden.

i have no respect for him whatsoever. he's an arrogant, self-important person. he raised these issues, for some reason our political intellectual leaders didn't. i can understand why. they'll never define lone wolfs. there are lone wolfs as wolves apparently. so i think that's really the issue. and it's interesting for jonah, a great authority on terrorism who points out we have not just defined it. typically terrorism meant political-type action to intimidate others to get results. it's hard to say that the sandy hook elementary school killer knit that. or indeed lee os walled. so i think we have to, more than focus on definition we have to focus on this this plague of unpleasant things. and just have -- we have to focus very much on the coping even maybe more than the definition and, that kind of

stuff. >> yes? >> i have a couple of points in response to mike's statement. firstly, given the resource constraints we have in a world of dwindling financial resources, it's hard to monitor something when you don't know what the characteristics are, and what to monitor and what to look for. t one constraint. there's why there's so much talk about a risk-based monitoring or riffing-based security. you look at the threat assessment no one has a single definition of risk. or loan -- lone wolf or terrorism. that's one constraint what you look at that. and in terms of having a potential lone wolf having the means to perpetrate a terrorist attack, my understanding and my take on this is not only having the means but the environment.

having the grievances, having triggering events. having inspiration to do the kind of acts that a lone wolf is capable of launching. so it's kind of an interplay between having the facility and the resolve to perpetrate something, and having the conducive condition in the environment to perpetrate it in. along with the external influences. >> i think there are some extremely salient points. there's a lot to be taken from this. let me just add; however, i want to go back to, again, your question number two. can society survive? and i raised baghdad as a model of 0 society that somehow continues to function under the most horrific conditions. and certainly there are others around the world as well. and the question has been raised you know what if it were happening here? the united states is arguably

the most resilient society in the world. and yet we're probably one of the societies that is least willing to confront the issue of resilience in the base of actions like this. 9/11 did not destroy the united states. 9/11 was a horrific event, the economic consequences probably got magnified because of our reaction. but none -- the event itself and i say this with all due respect. i lost friends on 9/11 like many people in this room did. 9/11 itself was a very small blip in terms of the american economy, the american -- america's ability to do the things that america needs to do. and yet, it dominates every conversation we've had in the last decade for perfectly good reasons. don's wife is british. don's wife's people, the brits, survived the blitz, they

survived two world wars, which reduced many of the cities to rubble. and sold -- what is the expression? they survived the irish. well, to the extend anybody survive the irish. [laughter] but the, again, at the end of the day as a nation we need to be prepared to understand that all the efforts that go forward whether it's being able to effectively identify the telltale signs of a protoradicallization. whether it's being successfully dip in to every internet search on the web whrb it's being look for just have the ultimate filters going through the meta data. things are going to happen. the degree to which nsa and the fbi and media and politicians and others have defined our response to terrorism our actions for terrorism as being

pursuit of a risk-free society, ensuring the prevex of -- prevention of any act. first of all, we ourselves up to fail. we have created an unreasonable expectations in our population. i would argue we have done a disservice to the population of this nation but suggesting somehow question have this risk-free society or risk-free future and not pay prices and not having that discussion a about what those prices are. yeah, i have no respect for richard snowden. ly say this, he's gotten the conversation on the table. >> yes. please. >> one second. the mic is gone. >> my name is steve duncan. i'm going to followup with mike said with a couple of historical perspectives. in 1936 when germany was building air power as fast as it could. there was a guy named churchill arguing on the floor of the

commons and the government said no. and the prime minister indeed got up and said no we shouldn't do that. because we have no political mandate to raise defense spending we can't afford it. churchill got up himself not very popular at the time and said we must remember that the protection of the british country does not require political mandate. it is the first order of duty of any tbrish -- british government. with that in new mind when i was in the government prior to 9/11 i made an official visit to israel. i was meeting with the national security leaders and i was most impressed when i landed in tell avive the security. i was talking to one individual and when i asked the question what is your strategic approach to fighting terrorism, his answer was. well, we know we can't eliminate it but we hope we can reach a point where it's politically acceptable in the number of

events that happen in the magnitude of those events. well, i was thinking about that a few years ago, and i thought that was fine before 9/11 and when we were not thinking about weapons of mass destruction but mike's point about the technology and my day we had to worry about missiles on soviet warheads. but now we're getting close to the point where you have to worry about one individual carrying a suitcase across an unprotected border. and if that's the case, you know, how do we get our political leadership to be honest with the american people instead of avoiding the discussion be candid that we may have to pay a price and a big price in our civil liberties to do what the constitution says which is protect american people as the first priority of government. remember, it was the great emancipator a guy named lincoln who suspended the writ of habus corpus. when he was asked it might be sense to cut off a limb to save the body.

it would make no sense at all to kill the body in order save a limb. we need a discussion along those lines. our politicals leaders, i think, are amiss, explaining that there is a price to pay. we didn't have a right of privacy until justice douglas wrote an opinion in the 1970 so while may be firmly established now, we have to take this in perspective of what is at stake here and we need real political leadership not ignoring thing and leaving it to the people who have a vested interest that we need political leaders to does it with the american people, big time. >> 1965. >> sorry. >> any member of the panel? i would like, again, to call our attention once again it's not only an issue for the united states, it is a global issue that affects many other nations

and as we mentioned some of the democracies in europe and no way in light of what -- no one in no way -- about this possibility of mas consider and so forth. and i can report to you again from the conversations we had just several days ago discussing the likelihood the possibility of a lone wolf attacking in some city in north africa or in egypt. again, it's not the question of if when and where and what impact. and that that's why i think it's critical to look at this not only a national level but the global level. we do have --

another comment on the technology. we've also had upstairs in our think tank inside the think tank here several times. there's an issue of the technology that always comes up. and actually actually surprise that the general public doesn't realize this. i want to point out the issue of the technology here. i think it's important that the general public here c-span, and across the nation understands the capability to find out outliers, if you will, to find lone wolfs. where that technology has already progressed to in the civil sector. the commercial sector, not in the government. the best example in your credit card behavior if you take your cd and try to take dollar's worth of gas and immediately go to the bank and try to withdrawal the credit card. they have built a profile of

fraudulent behavior. they have profiled it very well. and the behavior of stolen cards is so well understood that the computers will manage it and your cards will go dead on the spot or have to call in and verify who you are. this is gone further all your frequent buyers program at safeway, online at amazon, where you buy gas. all is computerized. all the meta data is available in the commercial world and shared between the companies such when you go the supermarket and buy something and prints out the certificates for you or discount cards, those cards are tailored for you because they have been profiling them. if you go on amazon and buy a bunch of books. the next time you go on there it recommends books to you. it is so sophisticated one of our young interns gave me one of the best stories i've heard this year about this. a graduate student talking about a friend of his in college came

in astounding young married couple. his wife got pregnant and before she had a change to tell him that she was pregnant he got an e-mail from one of the stores they shop at recommending baby buckets for him. congratulations on you and your wife being pregnant. they so well understood and profiled him and his wife they were able to offer him discounts before his wife could tell him that she was pregnant. the commercial world doing the meta data thing really well. compare it to the fact that the guy who killed 21 children in the northeast earlier this year, the guy who killed half a dozen people here in washington a month and a half ago. they look back at the backgrounds and stood out. all the neighbors said they stood out. their behavior was profileble. so we can build profiles question find these bad guys if we want to. i gork with the people upstairs,

google, am disob, microsoft built such good profile of the people out there. if some radical went postal and killed one of my children, couldn't i sue one of these companies to say you had the ability to find them? you had the profile. you had the ability to find them and sue you for not helping us find them. the point is technology has gotten to the point if we want to find lone wolves at least some of them, we probably could. therefore, the question of whether we want to comprise our civil liberties is not an academic question as it is a real question, whether it's time to do it or not. >> okay. any other comments? professor wallace? would you like to come up here and -- >> i'll sit here. i've pretty much said what i said. my usual line is he knows too much and wants to share it

together. it's hard to pull everything he knows. especially the case with the lone wolves. we're all kind of wolves in a way, you know. i would say that i just repeat what i said before. i've been whispering with kyle. we are talking about america and the great society we think it is. and just in our contemporary problems are. i think the issue is as we have been saying, it's how do we cope? we do not want to be at the level of baghdad with any respect with any iraqi in the room. it's going to take hard work and we'll work at it. the fisa court has to be a little bit different in the future. not at the meta data collection but when you get downtown scoop. there are not that many. you can tell from the story there are about 500 queries a year. it's hard to -- spike probably knows about it and just --

not because he's read anything there's any special briefing he just knows and we don't. it i think what definitely make it and probablied so good business to be done along the way. all the technology will be helpful. >> thank you. >> mike, maybe you want to close it? yes. only with the comment that these seminars are meant to be the beginning of the discussion. not the end of this discussion. so hopefully we stimulated your thoughts and desire to be involved more and hopefully that will lead to greater involvement with us and a greater help on your part in informing the public and keeping the discussion going. that's only through that process hopefully resolve some of these issues. thank you for coming. thank you for your participation. i hope you'll come back. >> thank you very much. [applause] today an an encore

presentation with q & a with charles bolden. here is more from that interview now. >> host: ten years from now we'll still be operating, i hope, on the internet space station. i would love to say that ten years from now humans will have landed on mars. that's not the course on which we are embarked. the president challenged us put humans on mars or at least in the martian environment in the 2030. that's a little far outside the 10-year window. we should be there. we should have been there now. but there may be humans on the moon inside that ten-year window if nasa is successful in fostering the development of commercial space and entrepreneurial space to the extent we're trying to do now.

there are some private enterprises who really believe they can put humans on the -- moon. and we have formal agreements with some of them to provide engineering expertise and other assistance, you know, in a nonreimbursable basis. it's conceivable. my belief is -- my personal belief it probably is a little bit outside the ten-year time frame. >> there was a portion of a q & a interview with nasa administrator charles bolden. you can see the entire conversation today at 7:00 p.m. eastern on c-span or any time online at c-span's video library . last week texas congressman and house armed service committee outlined goal of his initiative on improving the acquisition process at the deference department. he spoke for close to an hour at an event hosted by the center for strategic and international studies. [inaudible]

welcome, everybody. i look around the room and can't afford m the billing hours in this room. we better get started. t a pretty rich crowd. i haven't seen you in so long, skip. welcome, i'm john chair at csis. i was i heard it mac was going come to give a big announcement. and i said, i better get back. and of course i got back. it was three hours ago. so the most important thing for me to do get away from the stage quickly. i'm going make mistakes if i stay here. i can't resist. i do want to say i was last

weekend two weeks before that i was in tokyo at the conference and two weeks before that in seoul. every place i'm hearing the same thing. it is what the hell are you americans doing to yourselves? they want america to be a global leader. and they see what we're doing and genuinely anxious. they are genuinely worried what we're doing. and they say why, why is it happening? and i give them an explanation about very deep turmoil we have within our government about how do we establish priorities when our budget is so out of whack? and this is going to be with us for awhile. when i tell them that i said it's going to be a longer-term problem and we're going have it for awhile. and you feel everybody saying -- but don't be mistaken if we're needed tomorrow, you know, if the ion -- iranians were to do something

crazy in the straits of hormuz, we'll be there. don't worry about that. what we have to look at it's not today. we've got a remarkable capacity, remarkable military. what are we going have in ten years? what are we going have in 15 years? and that's really the issue that is on the table. that's really what vice chairman thorn berry is doing. i think he's looking at one of the most important questions. we can't afford to keep doing things the way we have been doing them and stay on the path we're on. we don't have the resources. and yet the world needs us to be as capable in ten and 15 years as we are today. how are we going do that? that's really the challenge in front of us. and that's the -- i'm not at all surprised that the chairman turned to mac and asked him to head it up. because he is clearly so highly regarded in this town. having